GR 203075; (March, 2016) (Digest)
G.R. No. 203075 . March 16, 2016
MILAGROS DIAZ, EDUARDO Q. CATACUTAN, DANTE Q. CATACUTAN, REPRESENTED BY THEIR COMMON ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, FERNANDO Q. CATACUTAN, PETITIONERS, VS. SPOUSES GAUDENCIO PUNZALAN AND TERESITA PUNZALAN, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
Petitioners, heirs of Rufina Vda. de Catacutan, filed an unlawful detainer complaint before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) against respondents, Spouses Punzalan. Petitioners alleged ownership of a parcel of land in Candaba, Pampanga, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 3169. They claimed that respondents constructed a house on a portion of the lot without their consent, but petitioners initially allowed them to stay, thinking they would vacate when needed. Upon formal demand to vacate on April 9, 2008, and respondents’ refusal, petitioners filed the ejectment suit on August 22, 2008. The MCTC ruled in favor of petitioners, ordering respondents to vacate and pay rentals and attorney’s fees. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed this decision on appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the MCTC validly acquired jurisdiction over the complaint, which petitioners characterized as one for unlawful detainer.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction in ejectment cases is determined by the allegations in the complaint. For a valid unlawful detainer action, the complaint must allege that the defendant’s initial possession was lawful by virtue of the plaintiff’s tolerance or a contract, which later became illegal upon notice to vacate, and that the suit was filed within one year from the last demand. The Court found petitioners’ complaint fatally deficient. It contained no averment that respondents’ entry and occupation were initially lawful or by petitioners’ tolerance. The mere allegation that petitioners “allowed them to stay” is insufficient, as it does not establish that the possession was originally permitted or tolerated from the beginning. Without this key jurisdictional fact, the complaint did not state a cause of action for unlawful detainer. Consequently, the MCTC did not acquire jurisdiction. The summary proceeding was void, and petitioners availed of the wrong remedy. They may, however, pursue an accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria in the proper RTC to recover possession.